Judge Nelson S. Román (S.D.N.Y.) recently dismissed a patent-infringement complaint for failure to state a claim, emphasizing the requirement that plaintiffs plead factual allegations rather than legal conclusions. Endobotics, LLC v. Fujifilm Healthcare Ams. Corp., No. 24-cv-2266 (NSR), 2025 WL 1549027, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025).
Plaintiff Endobotics, LLC (“Endobotics”) sued Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation (“Fujifilm”), claiming that Fujifilm’s “Tracmotion” product line of surgical instruments infringed two of Endobotics’ patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,147,650 and 7,364,582. Id. at *1. Endobotics alleged that, “[u]pon information and belief,” the Tracmotion products infringed the patents because they contained an element of the patent claims: a “proximal bendable member.” Id.
The court concluded that Endobotics’ complaint did not plausibly plead patent infringement. Judge Román emphasized the need for plaintiffs to allege factual allegations supporting infringement rather than legal conclusions. Id. at *2. The court explained that Endobotics’ allegation, based “upon information and belief,” that the Tracmotion products “contain[] the [patents’] material claims” was “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation which the Court [was] not required to credit.” Id. Inserting the phrase “upon information and belief” before conclusory allegations, Judge Román noted, does not render the allegations nonconclusory. Id. “Rather than only offer conclusions and . . . sincere beliefs,” Endobotics was required to “actually plead how the [Tracmotion products] infringe[]” the patent claims. Id.
Because Endobotics did not plausibly plead direct infringement, the court concluded that it did not state a claim for indirect, induced, or willful infringement either. Id. at *3.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting Endobotics leave to file an amended complaint. Id.
